An appeal to any / all 3rd party voters.

[darknemus]

Hi there! You don't know me, but let me give you an idea of who I am. I'm a guy who, like you, thinks politics is a nightmare.. sometimes the lesser of two evils, all politicans lie, etc, etc. I know what it's like to feel disillusioned by the two party system, and I believe in your right to 'vote your conscience' - I really do. I'm alot like you in that way. I'm all for alternative energy sources, dont drill in the Arctic - lets not go to war unless we abslolutely freaking have to, etc, etc.

However, in November, 2004..things are going to be TIGHT to state the least. Any of us (and I mean ANY of us) who can't deal with the current status quo. The lies, the manipulations, the pure EVIL of this administration need to make a hard choice, and in some cases, a sacrifice.

If the 'ABB' concept is one that you truly believe in - then you can't afford to toss even one vote towards a guy like Nader or any other 3rd party candidate. Look, I like Ralph - he's a cool guy.. a bit extreme in some of his views.. but heck, we all are with some of ours.. so its good. I think he would actually make a good EPA director or something along those lines.

What the 3rd parties SHOULD do (in my opinion) is, once the Democratic party nominee is decided, is lobby for cabinet positions, lobby for influence, lobby for their platform to take on some sort of integration within the Democratic platform. If there was ever a time for unity & inclusion, even in the face of different ideologies, this is it. Right here, right now.

I IMPLORE you, if you're considering voting 3rd party this Presidential Election.. don't. You could set your own movement back another 4 years and continue the downward spiral this country is in right now.

We need to ALL unite against this Administration - we need this to be ugly, dirty politics, partisan, and anything else it takes to 'defeat the opposition' - and the opposition is Shrub, its NOT each other. We can have our lesser (and they are lesser.. sorry.. but they are..maybe not 10 years from now.. but right now, they are) arguments over the issues November 6th, 2004.

-darknemus

[sharkbait2]

1. The two party system is flawed

I would actually laugh my ass off if a third party candidate won the elections. I know its not going to happen, but I think at some point America will wake up and figure out the problem is inherent in the system itself.

I would vote for Kucinich or Dean if they ran as independents. Perhaps if they lose in the primaries, they'll pull a Buchanan stunt so many of us disenchanted progressives will have a chance to cast something other than a vote of protest.

I don't think there is such a thing as a lesser evil. Our democratic system has become the embodiment of an evil that has shed its populist roots in exchange for a corporate dictatorship. We need representation. We need to transform our system to a multi-party parliamentary system that is representative of the diversity of our nation, and the interests of the People.

The two major parties are the anti-thesis of those principles.

[library_max]

3. The American political system is winner-take-all

That inevitably leads to a two-party system. The only alternative is a ruling party and a bunch of splinter parties like they had in Mexico under the PRI until recently. Would that make you happier? Because, if the left wing in this country continues to hate the Democrats and the right wing manages to cooperate with the Republicans, guess which party will become and remain that ruling party? :evilfrown:

[Iverson]

15. perfect example of the problem

"Because, if the left wing in this country continues to hate the Democrats ..."

I am sick to death of centrist appeasers telling me what I think and feel. For every rational effort at reaching out, such as the original posting of this thread, there seems to be at least three condescending contributions to offset it.

Don't like being called a centrist appeaser? Then quit lecturing to lefties about what they think and feel.

Unless, of course, that's too much to ask.

[library_max]

28. You glossed over a rather important word in that sentence.

Namely, the word "if". I'm not telling you what you think and feel. I'm not even calling you names. I'm just telling you what I've been reading on these boards.

And I'm sorry I'm unable at present to ask you to rejoin the party properly, the way you seem to want to be asked, but I left my kneepads in the car.

[Iverson]

33. incorrect on both counts

I did not gloss over your "if." I included it in my excerpt, and I correctly understood it as part of your premise, not as exclusively a conditional term as you now imply.

Further, you project into me demands that aren't there (your sarcastic reference to kneepads), proving my point not of the inability but of the unwillingness of partisans to engage others as equals.

Would that you spent as much energy trying to understand my point as you did in looking for a semantic "out."

[library_max]

35. Despite your predilection for long words

you aren't that hard to understand. I understood your point. You were offended that I made a casual and sweeping reference to Democrat-hating lefties.

In my own subtle and dignified manner <sarcasm off> I was attempting in my reply to indicate the extent to which the world does not come to a screeching halt when something offends you.

This is a discussion board, not a doctoral dissertation. I make no apologies for indulging in the occasional sweeping generalization, especially when it seems to me to be supported by the facts.

There was nothing personal in my original post. You chose to personalize it, to make it about you ("I am sick to death of centrist appeasers telling me what I think and feel." - italics mine).

But if you insist on being the poster-boy for intransigent lefties who have to have their own way and their own way of having it and take every opinion that differs from yours as a personal affront, go ahead - have at it.

[Iverson]

38. crouching tiger, phony umbrage

You've left out something important (unlike me, who included what you accused me of not including):
"For every rational effort at reaching out, such as the original posting of this thread, there seems to be at least three condescending contributions to offset it."

darknemus was at least trying to engage with other people. Your phony umbrage, which rests substantially on painting me in a particular way, only undermines that effort. And all your puerile sarcasm about kneepads or doctoral dissertations doesn't alter that.

What a shame that rational and open exchange is too damn much to ask.

Take the last word. I'm sure you'll set a good example.

[Rowdyboy]

4. Don't count on Kucinich or Dean running as independants....

They're both REAL Democrats...

[JohnKleeb]

24. Thanks Rowdy

He is such a democrat, he would have been considered mainstream dem until fairly recently.

[Old and In the Way]

5. A system that served us reasonably well for 200 years, I think.

But perhaps you like the Italien model better....

Sadly, the lessons of 2000 are sinking in with all my progressive friends. Sometimes you need to work for incremental wins inside the system rather than losing ground outside.

Oh well, it's your conscience and your "right" to do whatever you want in 2004. And that just might be the last election you'll have to worry about in this lifetime....

[wyldwolf]

2. This sure is falling on deaf ears...

... but you're right.

And they'll realize it when Bush is inaugerated in 2004.

But maybe not. Some will still deny it.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Deja Vu, eh Wyldwolf?

It will be our progressive "friends" booking their plane tics out after the next election, I think.

[LWolf]

23. I don't blame them, if that's what you two consider "friendship."

"grr"

:WTF:

Why do you assume that most 3rd party members, independents, or progressive democrats...like me...won't support the dem nominee against Bush? Because we won't compromise for you in the primary?

Edited to remove blunt, pithy response.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Nice post darknemus....I think you state the case is a pretty

even-handed manner.

[George_Bonanza]

8. Doesn't every country have a two-party system basically?

In Canada, it's become a one-party system, because the Canadian Alliance (Western Canadian conservatives) and Progressive Conservatives (Eastern Canadian conservatives) have split the right into two, and are not reconciling. All that's left is are the Liberals, and the fledgling NDP and Bloc Quebecois. I must say, this definitely not good for democracy. When any side gets a semi-monopoly on politics, it's never good. There needs to be argument between the two sides to keep each on their twos and to keep the people interested and involved.

In every democratic country, isn't there usually a two party system? There's the big right, the big left, and whatever varying 3rd parties? In Britain, it's basically the Labour Party and the broken Conservative party.

[SubliminAL MessaGOREs]

9. An analogy through the TV.

Okay, lets say that 60% of the US likes football, and 40% likes cooking, and lets say there are only 3 TV stations (and you can't get cable)(Let's consider this hypothetical and not go through "Only 3 channels" nightmares please). If one shows cooking and the other two show football, at least one of the football channels will NOT surpass the cooking channel. If the system for selecting which football channel is random, odds are that the cooking channel will win over both of them despite the fact that less than half of america likes to watch cooking shows. Does that sound familiar?

[newyawker99]

13. Hi SubliminAL MessaGOREs!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[sharkbait2]

10. The establishment sucks!

Name one other democracy in the world that has a two-party system?

All this system does is dumb down the populace and force them to vote for a party that only represents a segment of their values. It dumbs down the people to see only black and white, and to be conned by politicians on both sides by getting them to focus all their energy on the opposition, and on winning. The two-party system has all the sophistication of the WWF.

Serves us well you say? I would argue otherwise. The flaws of the two-party system are becoming very apparent. Funny how you jump to cite the example of Italy, which is the opposite extreme of our system, rather than focus on the majority of parliamentary systems. That extremism puts you on equal footing with your freeper brethren, just on a different side of the "establishment".

That "establishment" is not serving us regardless of the animal it carries on its logo. The establishment needs to be eradicated and re-built into a true direct democracy!

[library_max]

12. What you are talking about is proportional representation

Our Constitution doesn't have that - we have winner-take-all. It would take a major tear-down-and-rebuild of our political system, beginning with a Constitutional amendment. It ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes.

The sensible recourse, then, is to vote for the party or major-party candidate that comes the closest to reflecting your values. This is sohisticated in a different way, because it calls on voters to make choices that are sometimes difficult and often less than perfectly satisfying.

If a party wins enough elections, the agenda starts to drift in its direction (left for Democrats, right for Republicans), and then the true believers can see more of their agenda enacted. It happened for the Democrats after World War II through the Johnson administration, and it is happening now for the Republicans, if we can't or don't stop it. Fussing about the system, which is built into our Constitution, won't help us stop the Republicans.

[Mairead]

18. I think you should check your facts.

The only Amendment required would be to abolish the Electoral College, that vermiform appendix of elitism.

Putting in IRV and taking out the winner-take-all nature of Electoral College appointments is a matter for each state, no federal action required.

[library_max]

29. Another distinction without a difference.

You'd still need a Constitutional amendment, and it still ain't never gonna happen.

[Mairead]

36. Jeez, it must be such a heavy weight to bear, all that omniscence

Hell, I can't even predict whether it'll rain tomorrow, but you can predict the effects of political movements far into the future. I'm so impressed. However do you do it?

[library_max]

37. Jeez, it must be such a heavy weight to bear, all that sarcasm

But I'm not so much impressed.

If you're interested in substance at all, consider this. Any Constitutional amendment has to start in Congress. Almost every member of Congress is either a Republican or a Democrat, elected into office under the two-party winner-takes-all system. So what exactly would be their motivation, ever, to set such an amendment in motion?

[Mairead]

42. "what exactly would be their motivation"

The only one most of them recognise: keeping their jobs.

And I invite you to think of the national effect of changing, at the state level, from winner-take-all to IRV in the voting, and/or from winner-take-all to proportional assignment in the electors. No Constitutional amendment at the national level.

[library_max]

44. They got their jobs and keep their jobs under the present rules

Why on earth would they want to change? Why rock the boat? And even if there were a few mavericks or a few who felt that they had little chance of being reelected without "shaking things up," the vast majority would of course vote them down.

The problem is exactly the same on the state level. Unless you know of a state where such a thing could be accomplished by referendum without the approval of the state legislature, it's a dead issue. And if this or that state did individually change to proportional representation (and the USSC didn't overrule it on the same basis as Bush v. Gore), they would be severely undercutting their influence in national politics by monkeywrenching their own primaries, sending "orphan" representatives to Congress, etc.

The politics of reality are so different from the politics of wishcraft. It is more productive to firmly grasp things as they are and then consider how desired changes can be made, than to begin by assuming that you can get whatever you want (if you yell loud enough) and then cast about for counterarguments when someone brings up the ugly issue of reality.

[George_Bonanza]

14. Canada is basically a one-party system now

Alliance and PC's have split the right, and the liberals hog all the left. There are the novelty parties like the NDP and Bloc Quebecois, sort of like the Green party, or the Reform party in America.

European countries also have a similar two-party system. I'm looking at my 1997 Encyclopedia here and Germany has either elected a Christian Democrat or a Social Democrat since Hitler. I do not know what Schroeder is though. In France, it has been dominated by Gaullists, with a couple of Reassemblement pour al Republique, and a handful of French Socialists. In Canada, it has been Liberal or Conservative since the beginning of the 20th century, except for one Robert Borden, a Unionist. Britain has either been Labour or Conservative for the vast majority of the time. The only exception here seems to be Australia, with sporadic parties taking power, from Liberal, to Labour, to United Australia, to Country, to Liberal-National...

[JVS]

20. Schroeder is SPD

[Socialist Worker]

27. You are quite wrong, my friend.

Germany is not a two-party system.

France is not a two-party system.

The US is a two-party system.

Rassemblement pour la Republique is the party of De Gaulle, and Gaullists belong(ed) to this party. Now the RPR dissolved into the right-wing coalition party L'Union pour le Mouvement Populaire (UMP). In France all parties are publicly funded for elections and it is not the big conglomerates who elect the government. This is why the Communist Party was so big in the 1940s to 1970s and why both the National Front AND the radical Left Trotskyist parties (Lutte Ouvriere, Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire, Parti Travailleur) both have broad popular support in the elections.

[Deja Q]

11. We should also organize and make an appeal to corporate america

But you're preaching to my choir, I'm voting Dem this time.

Who I want will never win and the status quo will be maintained. Why I desire to live on in a society that lacks the self-respect to improve itself remains a mystery. Maybe I'm just hopeful.

[Booberdawg]

16. GOOD LUCK!

[Mairead]

17. If you feel that strongly, then I hope you'll help nominate the candidate

that all can support: Dennis Kucinich. Because Dennis is the one who represents the Lost Values Of The Democratic Party, without which the Party is doomed.

[Eloriel]

19. Why I am massively offended by such an appeal

I'm not a 3rd party voter, but I am a voter who is totally and utterly fed up with holding my nose to vote. So much so that I ain't gonna do it any more. Period.

It is not up to ME to award office out of some sense of loyalty to a party that doesn't represent my best interests anymore, let alone listen to us, to the very people who are the embodiment of the "don't listen, won't represent" school of politics. It's up the THEM to BE electable, which means EARNING my vote.

And if that means George Bush wins again (legitimately, which means without the help of voting machines), then maybe someday the anointed ones will wake up and GET IT that they're useless, wrong, worthless and a crushing disappontment to the people it's their job to represent.

They need to start with a profound apology for their war vote, and for most of them there are a bunch of other wrong-headed things they've done they need to apologize for too.

It's that simple.

Eloriel

[nomaco-10]

22. I have always enjoyed your posts and

agree with most of what you have to say. I, too am an avid Dean supporter and often feel a sweep of nausea come over me when I come to the realization that I might have to "hold my nose" at the polls in 2004. I have gone over this scenario a million times in my mind and have come to this conclusion, a vote against bush*, no matter who the nominee is, is a vote to get Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Wolfowitz out of the White House. I don't wrestle anymore with being labelled a sellout to my principles, I try to look at the bigger picture, and that is that this evil, corrupt cabal must be put out of the White House in 2004 whatever it takes. If I have to compromise my strongly held beliefs and vote for Kerry or Clark, you're damn right I'll be holding my nose all the way to the polls in 2004. The only other concession I've allowed myself on this issue, is to possibly just stay home if Lieberman get's the nod.

[Pastiche423]

31. Just getting cheney, rummy, asscroft and wolfie

out of the WH, does nothing to change the direction of politics, thus our country. Changing a more visual evil to a less visual evil (I hate the word "evil" now, but will use it here) is not progress.

Voting the lesser of two evils, is still putting an evil in office. That IS the mindset of the ABBers, whether they realize it or not.

We have the chance now to vote for real change in 2004. I'm w/Eloriel on this. A candidate must earn my vote. I will not give away my precious vote for an empty "win".

The bigger picture, btw, is that ANY evil, corrupt or status quo not be allowed in power. Voting ABB could be allowing just that.

[RichM]

32. I agree 100%. Getting rid of the cabal accomplishes nothing, if their

replacements are not fully committed to defeating the social forces that made a Bush regime possible in the first place. Most Democrats simply don't measure up, in this regard. Many of them have been Bush appeasers & enablers. Merely switching horses to one of these "lesser evils" is not progress.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Sorry Rich but I disagree with that interpretation

I disagree with ALL interpretations that would FORCE a change in short order on a population of 400 million people. I am of the school of thought that all policy should move slowly and be vetted by vigorous debate that actually PROMPTS a conversation about all the pros and cons.

My evidence for my position is the very FAST negative result of the Gingrich revolution resulting in PSLRA. In fact, one need to look no further than the Bush tax cut to see how quickly fortunes turned for every state in the union economically.

I believe INSTABILITY leads to MORE negative consequences than does slow thoughtful deliberative process.

I respect and admire you intellectualism and respect Eloriel's disgust at what the current lack of process and debate has led to.

I still feel that if we are to turn it around, it must be done piecemeal zeroing in on the most egregious abuses such as legalized tax evasion with offshore shells for companies getting federal contracts. Then a return of many regulatory laws. Then a slow re-shaping of tax laws and an honest debate about what aspets of national security are necessary versus those that are simply a vacuum where funds go and never resurface.

[rasputin1952]

43. I've got to go with your post...

I cannot think of a time in history where "profound" and immediate change in politics, has not become a disaster.

It causes instability, and that leads to a dysfunctional state.

:hi:

[library_max]

30. Gotta respect that - clear, honest, and to the point

"I'm not a 3rd party voter, but I am a voter who is totally and utterly fed up with holding my nose to vote. So much so that I ain't gonna do it any more. Period."

"And if that means George Bush wins again (legitimately, which means without the help of voting machines), then maybe someday the anointed ones will wake up and GET IT that they're useless, wrong, worthless and a crushing disappontment to the people it's their job to represent."

What the original poster was trying to do, as I understand it, was appeal to reasonable Nader voters and other reasonable third party voters who are willing to bend a little and who still want to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. You've made it abundantly clear that that ain't you. Okay, fair enough. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

[imhotep]

21. not interested

in defeating any specific politician or party.
I am interested in change, which 99% of candidates do NOT represent.

[LWolf]

25. Actually, most of the 3rd party members I've spoken to

are intelligent enough to get this on their own. Many of them are reregistering as dems to take part in the primaries, hoping to get a candidate they can legitimately support. And all that I have spoken to so far have expressed a determination to evict * at any cost. Including some 3rd party office holders, calling on support for dem candidates in the primaries and in the general election.

If we don't evict * in '04, it won't be because of 3rd party voters.

[Socialist Worker]

26. OK. Let's vote Democratic then.

[Ardee]

39. who do you think you are kidding?

If you are insincere and simply making attempt number sixthousandninehundredandseventysix to paint the left and those with an interest in third party politics in a bad light I say, sorry no sale, its been done to death...if you are not insincere read on.

There are so many responses to your commentary that I will limit myself to just this one, Bush is not the problem, the system under which someone as intellectually limited, callously heavy handed with the truth, and blatantly religiously motivated to destroy our civil rights can occupy the WH is the problem.

We increasingly are in need of a third party in order to avoid the complete lack of debate on many issues no longer considered important by the democratic leadership in their pandering after the corporate funds they so covet.

The political climate in america has undergone a drastic change for the worse, and, in microcosm, that can be seen here at DU. Blatant calls for the limitations on free speech, ridiculous assumptions about Ralph Nader and the Green Party, accusations that could never ever stand the light of truth, calls to support a candidate whose entire political career has been one of centrist support for the corporations and abandonment of seniors, children and the environment on the basis of his being a "moderate" all cry out the need for a champion of progressive causes.

This may not be a popular stance, especially among those who use Nader and the Greens as a scapegoat to avoid looking at the truth about their beloved democrats but it is one that has found merit among more than a few thinking americans, most of them former democrats. Knee jerk reactions to "that name", usually by those who have adopted a meme without even being aware of its adoption, and certainly not being aware of its untruth or its usefulness to neoconservative democratic apologists will never change the ills of our two party system.

The two party system is dead, killed, in part by the willingness of the right to spend money like water promoting lies which, through sheer repitition become truths in the minds of far too many. It should have been resuscitiated by an active and vocal opposition party but it was not, as that party simply chose to follow the money and not its conscience.

[Iverson]

40. geez, Ardee

Dis i'int a doctoral dissertation, y'know.:crazy:

[Ardee]

41. no its just common sense

and logic....